Is the right of an accused to prefer an appeal against conviction and sentence merely a statutory right, and can exercising it be allowed to leave the accused worse off than if he had not appealed at all?

No. A right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge without a right to seek a re-look by a superior court; the right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused, and it would be self-defeating to leave such an accused worse off for having exercised that right.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 386, Section 397, Section 401, Section 31 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — enhancement of sentence — suo moto revisional jurisdiction — consecutive sentences — enhancement of sentence — no appeal for enhancement — impermissible — Held: In the absence of an appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim or the complainant, an appellate or revisional court cannot enhance a convict's sentence so as to leave the convict worse off than before filing the appeal; the High Court's exercise of suo moto revisional jurisdiction to enhance the Appellant's sentence, absent any such appeal, was impermissible. (¶17–19) right of appeal — constitutional right — accused not to be left worse off — Held further: The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused, who cannot be left worse off for having exercised it. (¶17) life imprisonment — consecutive sentences barred — Section 31, CrPC — Held further: A sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence, since imprisonment for life implies imprisonment for the entire span of the convict's normal life; where multiple sentences are awarded including one of life imprisonment, all must run concurrently. (¶20–22) sentence modified — appeals disposed of — Held further: The enhancement of sentence was set aside and the direction for consecutive running of sentences was modified to direct concurrent running; the appeals were disposed of in these terms. (¶19, ¶22–24)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GOPI @ SAHAYA PURUNA v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India